Jump to content

Talk:The Blacklist: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)
Bots
6,480,616 edits
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
6,748,370 edits
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "GA" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Television}}, {{WikiProject United States}}.
 
(53 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkpage header}}
{{talkpage header}}
{{GA|04:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)|topic=Television|page=1|oldid=1140046721}}
{{WikiProject Television|class=c|episode-coverage=y|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject United States |class=C |importance=Low |USTV=y}}


== Reception truthyness ==


{{User:MiszaBot/config
I find no trace in the (a) [http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2013/09/22/bianco-blacklist-hostages-combo-review-sept-23/2831619/ USA Today's Robert Bianco The Blacklist review ] I found of it being called the fall's best new drama, as the series' ads claimed.
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
I do see "USA TODAY review for 'The Blacklist': *** ½ out of four". I wonder if the ad misrepresent's USA Today's views of the drama, or if there's another explanation.
|maxarchivesize = 100K
I wonder if the others check out (5 Stars per the SF Chron, a "Surefire Hit" per the AP?)
|counter = 2
--[[User:Elvey|Elvey]] ([[User talk:Elvey|talk]]) 07:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
|minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:The Blacklist/Archive %(counter)d
}}


{{old move|date=3 May 2022|from=The Blacklist (TV series)|destination=The Blacklist|result=moved|link=Special:Permalink/1089722769#Requested move 3 May 2022}}
== Grey / Newton Phillips ==


{{Annual readership|scale=log}}
Are there two persons named "Grey" in this show? and why is Grey called Newton Phillips and the banker called Grey?
{{DYK talk|9 March|2023|entry=... that former CIA agent Bazzel Baz was hired to be a consultant for '''''[[The Blacklist]]''''' television series and instead became a cast member?|nompage=Template:Did you know nominations/The Blacklist}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|
{{WikiProject Television|episode-coverage=y|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject United States |importance=Low |USTV=y}}
}}


== Nominating for DYK ==
Something is not quite right here, can someone knowledgeable about this show correct this please? [[Special:Contributions/98.203.247.11|98.203.247.11]] ([[User talk:98.203.247.11|talk]]) 22:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


@[[User:Figureskatingfan|Figureskatingfan]], hello and thanks once again for GA promotion. I'm thinking about nominating the article for Did You Know page, but I'm not that experienced in how it's done and, as I see, the time for doing that is limited. Since you've just finished assisting this one, I want to ask you to help me here. If you consider to help me in any sphere of this nomination, I would be more than thankful to you than ever. [[User:Eagowl|Eagowl]] | [[User talk:Eagowl|talk]] | 04:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
== why was series 1 in 2 parts ==


:@[[User:Eagowl|Eagowl]], I think that's something that you should learn how to do, since you seem committed to improve the quality of articles. Plus, I'm not always going to be able to do it for you. Right now, I do, so I'll go ahead and do it for you. It's pretty easy, and there are lots of people who will help, like the folks who helped me through my most recent DYKs. You have seven days to submit it, so I'll make sure that it's done before the deadline if you decide you can't. Best, [[User:Figureskatingfan|Christine (Figureskatingfan)]] ([[User talk:Figureskatingfan|talk]]) 20:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Why was the first series down in 2 parts?
::Thank you for so speedy reaction, I couldn't even reply to you! I actually thought that it would be tougher to do and will require more time that it actually took. Of course, I'll learn to do it myself, but I wanted not to fail this one, given the series' ending soon and the fact it's my first GA after all. [[User:Eagowl|Eagowl]] | [[User talk:Eagowl|talk]] | 01:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
[[User:Amanda138a|Amanda138a]] ([[User talk:Amanda138a|talk]]) 11:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
:::Oh, I'm so glad you went ahead and submitted the nom yourself! Wow, you even reviewed another DYK, which you don't have to do until your fifth nom. I'm also glad you found it easier than you thought; I find that if I don't submit DYK noms regularly, I make all kinds of errors, which kind folks came behind and help me fix. It looks like it's gonna go through, so congrats. [[User:Figureskatingfan|Christine (Figureskatingfan)]] ([[User talk:Figureskatingfan|talk]]) 18:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
::::So, the hook has been reviewed, but what should be done next? I've tried to understand the process of approving it for the Main Page, but I found it a bit messy (approved hooks, then awaiting approval, then prep ares, queues…) while the time (7 days since promotion) is expiring. Could you please clarify how to go on with it? [[Eagowl]] | 11:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small clGass="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Eagowl|Eagowl]] ([[User talk:Eagowl#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Eagowl|contribs]]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::There's nothing further that you need to do. The reviewer added the green check mark, so it's done. The DYK admins will put it on the schedule and then a bot will inform you of the date it's gonna be up on the Main Page. Go here [[Template:Did you know/Queue]] if you want to check for when it shows up in the queue and the exact time it will be there. [[User:Figureskatingfan|Christine (Figureskatingfan)]] ([[User talk:Figureskatingfan|talk]]) 16:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


==Did you know nomination==
The first part was a special that was shown on a Sunday with the second part shown in its regularly scheduled time the following Monday. [[Special:Contributions/98.203.247.11|98.203.247.11]] ([[User talk:98.203.247.11|talk]]) 01:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
{{Template:Did you know nominations/The Blacklist}}


== Too many spoilers in the cast list ==
== ==


Copied here from the mainpage error report.
What it says. Those need to be rewritten and the spoilers removed entirely from the article. Its one thing to find things like that in an episode description, but something else entirely to find it like this. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/173.22.167.252|173.22.167.252]] ([[User talk:173.22.167.252|talk]]) 13:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


"former CIA agent Bazzel Baz was hired to be a consultant for [[The Blacklist]]" contains a possible error. "CIA agent" and "CIA officer" mean two different things as explained at [[Intelligence officer]]. Unfortunately, each of the two sources at [[The Blacklist]] use a different title for Mr. (?) Baz. His [https://bazzel-baz.com/ personal website] claims SOG officer and case officer, so we should probably go with that per BLP policy. ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">[[User:Bri|Bri]]</span> ([[User talk:Bri|talk]]) 00:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
: Just say remove it! Don't say re-write it- nobody will! Unfortunately I didn't realise that just glancing at the cast/character list would hit me with the profound type of decision-changing spoiler- the decision being whether to still go for this series or not! (if it's not just uncool to be so late to the show that is). In truth though I did know better whether to look at pages like this one or not, but I still feel cheesed off to be frank. I'm certainly not going to look at this text again (the standard call to 'go remove' what offends is always ridiculous). I just think that the word 'why?' isn't used well at all on Wikipedia- it's typically more about 'do'. But doesn't why always need to be asked first? And if someone wants to remove what they see? Then it's so often about the word 'don't'. But it's only then can you realistically posit why? It leads to endless commotion. This place was originally intended to be an information aid, not a personalised fan site, a platform or portal for further exploration, not 'the last word' on anything in any sense of the term. The ability to be comprehensive (and competition too imo) meant it diversified pretty quickly into providing all kinds of news. But is stuffing like this even news? This place is still crammed full of needless and often in some way divisive padding. Isn't there already too much stuff in this world without so much additional digital trash to soak up our time (and, with it's increasing carbon footprint, to some degree our actual space)? Matt <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/88.109.54.223|88.109.54.223]] ([[User talk:88.109.54.223#top|talk]]) 02:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:: Per [[WP:SPOILERS]] we do not refrain from adding spoilers to an article if the content is otherwise useful. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 20:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
:::Would that be 'We' as in true Wikipedians? I have to ask you, 'Per' apropos to what? How is the above 'otherwise useful'? (If my comment was tldr- and why respond to it if it was- this needless spoiler is in the Cast/Characters list, not the plot breakdown.) Whatever may theoretically happen, people will often look at the Cast for actors, not for such details in the plot (there is another section for the story). Defending such a spoiler is a classic case of re-fastening guideline use above applying common sense. And (interestingly to me) it shows an all-too typical lack of actual interest in both the argument posed (which means the reader too) and the very subject itself - which is so often the case on here. It always left me scratching my head. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/88.109.54.223|88.109.54.223]] ([[User talk:88.109.54.223#top|talk]]) 01:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::: We, as in all editors of Wikipedia. Since the policies and guidelines apply to all editors.
:::: You are right that spoilers are usually in a plot section, not the cast list (there recently was a similar discussion at [[Hunters (2020 TV series)]]).
:::: I couldn't follow the rest of your arguments. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 19:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

== International broadcasts ==

I don't believe it's necessary to Wikilink each country listed in this section per [[WP:OVERLINK]]. They are not particularly relevant to understanding anything about the article at all; they just give where these various TV stations are located. Most like Portugal, etc. are linked, but Germany is not. Germany not being linked does not make the article as a whole any more difficult to follow than it would be if Germany was linked. So, I have removed these Wikilinks. In addition, a piped link would be better for LNK (like was done for RNL) per [[WP:LINKSTYLE]] so I have added that as well. Finally. I have fixed the way the time is displayed per [[MOS:TIME]]: small case letters and a hard space should be used for am/pm. - [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 20:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

== Citation cleanup, etc. ==

I tried to cleanup the citations per [[WP:CITEVAR]] so that they followed the same [[WP:CITESTYLE]]. Some of them were also not using [[WP:CT|citation templates]] so I added them as needed. Moreover, some of the links were dead, so I added [[WP:LR#Preventing link rot|archived links]] whenever possible. I also filled in more of the template parameters whenever possible.

When cleaning up the links, I found some of the TV channels had Wikipedia articles written about them, so I wikilinked them whenever possible. I also did some editing and rearranging of the ''International broadcasts'' section to make it work a little better. I actually think this section might be easier to understand if a table was used instead, especially since a table would make it easier to add more channels as needed. Perhaps that is a topic worthy of future discussion.

I think I caught one error regarding the Swedish, Denmark and Norway broadcasts. The original text made it seem like the show was broadcast on ''TV3'' in on all three countries. The ''[http://deadline.com/2013/06/sony-tvs-blacklist-lines-up-international-sales-526009/ Deadline Hollywood]'' source says something slightly different. So, I moved the info for Germany closer to that of the other three countries to make it easier to cite them all with the ''DH'' source.

I probably should have made more incremental changes, so hopefully I didn't screw things up too badly. If I did, then my apologies in advance. Please revert whatever mistakes I made as needed. - [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 12:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

== Season Finale Awards? ==

That's nothing more than a poll by EW. I believe the awards section should be limited to actual award ceremonies. [[User:Chunk5Darth|Chunk5Darth]] ([[User talk:Chunk5Darth|talk]]) 00:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

== Afd: [[Raymond Reddington]] ==

Please see the deletion discussion for the article [[Raymond Reddington]]: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Reddington]]. Cheers, [[User:Animalparty|--Animalparty--]] ([[User talk:Animalparty|talk]]) 19:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

== [[The Blacklist (TV series)#The Blacklist|The Blacklist]] ==

I'm not sure why this section is in the article. Can any of the information on "The Blacklist" be verified by [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]? Seems like lots of [[WP:OR|original research]] to me. Right now, all we have is a pretty large table filled with lots of question marks. This section was added by {{u|85.159.97.2}} with {{diff|The Blacklist (TV series)|next|633332639|this edit}}. 85.159.97.2 left a note that says "Please do not change the layout of the following table without first discussing it on the talk page and reaching consensus to do so.", but I cannot find anywhere on talk where this major expnasion was discussed at all before being added. Of course, there's nothing wrong with [[WP:BOLD|being bold]], but I think it's time to discuss whether this section is actually an improvement or not. Personally, I think the mention of the list given in the lede is more than sufficient for the reader to at least understand where the title of the show comes from and that any further explanation of the list should be done using prose per [[WP:PROSE]]. As it is, I don't see any value of having this table in the article at all, but perhaps it could be split off as a stand-alone list per [[WP:SAL]]. Anyway, I am interested in hearing what others may think. Thanks in advance. - [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 04:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
:Considering that only 31 of the 161 names filled in the list (assuming it would last 161 or so episodes), with the other 130 of them having nothing more than question marks, it seems pointless to include this list in the first place. Besides, the episode list has the numbers anyway. Also, [http://the-blacklist.wikia.com/wiki/The_Blacklist The Blacklist wiki has an entry on it]. I wouldn't rule out linking this somewhere. -- [[User:Matthew R Dunn|'''Matthew''']] [[User talk:Matthew R Dunn|RD]] 21:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
:: I think it's fine to include more detailed information about "the list" and its significance as long as that information is supported by reliable [[WP:3PARTY|third-party sources]] and in prose (as opposed to a table), but I'm not sure if "The Blacklist wiki" satisfies [[WP:UGC]]. Perhaps it would be OK to add a link to that wiki as an [[WP:EL|external link]] per [[WP:ELMAYBE]]. Regardless, the table in it's current form has no real encyclopedic value in my opinion and should be removed from the article per [[WP:UNSOURCED]]. - [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 04:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
:::You can't use the Blacklist wiki as an external link, it fails [[WP:ELNO]] ''" Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and '''a substantial number of editors.''''' The Blacklist wiki has 43 editors. It can't be used as an external link, and definitely can't be used as a reliable souece. - [[User:X201|X201]] ([[User talk:X201|talk]]) 07:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
:::: Thanks for the clarification X201. I was pretty sure that wiki couldn't be used as a reliable source per WP:UGC, but not so sure whether is was OK to use as an external link. - [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 08:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"The list" has been edited numerous times within the past few days, and each edit appears to be nothing more than the "original research" of particular person making the edit. Some editors even seem to be confusing the numbers on the list for the episode numbers like with {{diff|The Black List (TV series)|next|644788220|this edit}}. No sources are being provided for any of the information being added or removed and nothing is being added about the significance of the list as a plot point. This appears to be nothing more than just a "list" (A "[[WP:NOTWHOSWHO|Who's who]]" perhaps?) with very questionable reliability and no supporting sources provided in support. So I suggest in be removed per [[WP:UNSOURCED]], [[WP:NOTEVERYTHING]], [[WP:CRYSTAL]] and [[WP:NOR]]. - [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 07:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

:The list should not be here in the first place. It's purely fancruft (pardon the term). There is no context as to why this is important. It's only purpose seems to be to list everyone that Raymond has given up to the FBI. There's a plot summary for the episodes that does this very thing. This type of information is best left to a Wikia. This is even more true when you think that the list of episodes page lists everyone there. [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> &nbsp;BIGNOLE&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 14:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
::Gone. [[User:Chunk5Darth|Chunk5Darth]] ([[User talk:Chunk5Darth|talk]]) 09:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Just curious, why create a section for their number? If I'm not mistaken, isn't the actual title of the episode "Number X: Name"? Obviously, there's no colon, but my point is that the number appears with the name. So, isn't that part of the title then? [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> &nbsp;BIGNOLE&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 16:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

{{reply to|Rswallis10}} <small>(Note:This was intended to be a response to a post by Rswallis10, but they removed their comment while I was editing mine.)</small> The list, in another form, was previously removed from the article per the discussion in this thread. The [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] was that [[WP:ONUS|the information wasn't an improvement]] and was [[WP:UNSOURCED|unsourced]]. Your version of the list looks different, but it is essentially the same in content: Just a list of names with no mention made of its significance to the series and no reliable sources provided in support. The information may be true, but [[WP:VNT|verifiability is more important that truth]] on Wikipedia.
FWIW, I can see possibly adding text which discusses the significance of the list, it's use to drive the story, or how it is being interpreted by reliable sources to the article, but in my opinion there is no real encyclopedic value in adding a list of "bad guys" and indicating whether they are dead. [[WP:NOTEVERYTHING|Not everything]] about a particular subject needs to be included in its Wikipedia article and this kind of list is probably [[WP:NOT#FANSITE|more appropriate for a fan page or specific site devoted entirely to the show than Wikipedia]]. I'm happy to discuss this further, but I wasn't the only editor who felt the list didn't belong in the article. So, it would help if you could be more specific as to why you feel the list belongs and, if possible, which [[WP:POLICY|Wikipedia policies and guidelines]] you think support its inclusion in the article. Perhaps by doing so, you might be able to achieve a [[Wp:CONSENSUS|consensus]] in favor of re-adding the list to the article. - [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 01:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

:{{reply to|Marchjuly}} Do you think the list would serve a greater purpose on a page such as "List of The Blacklist characters" as it is essentially a list of the "bad guys" of the series. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Rswallis10|Rswallis10]] ([[User talk:Rswallis10|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rswallis10|contribs]]) 10:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC+9)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:: I'm not sure. [[List of The Blacklist characters]] seems to be focused on "main characters" and "recurring characters". I would consider most of the people on "the list" to be "guest stars" appearing in a single episode. So far, only the "Pavlovich Brothers" have appeared in multiple episodes, but I'm not sure if even they would be considered recurring. I guess it might be possible to add a new section for "the list" to the "List of Blacklist characters" article, but whatever is added should be written out using [[WP:PROSE|prose]] and not simply be a list of names and episodes in a table. It would also be best to be able to provide some kind of reliable sources in support so that other editors can verify the names are on the list and the order they are listed; Otherwise, another editor could simply remove what was added per [[WP:UNSOURCED]] and [[WP:NOR]]. Finally, there is the question of whether such information is really needed at all since essentially the same information that was in your table and the previous table with all the question marks is already provided in the "Blacklist Guide" column of the episode tables in [[List of The Blacklist episodes]]. - [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 05:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
:::{{reply to|Marchjuly}} I have a couple opinions on this. First, putting everything in the table in prose would ruin the entire point of having the information in the first place. The actual show is called "The Blacklist" and the entire show revolves around Red's blacklist. This table provides the namesake of the show, and it makes it really easy to quickly see everyone on the Blacklist which, in my opinion, is the most intriguing part of the show. This show is basically a guaranteed renewal for Season 3 according to the Cancellation Bear on tvbythenumbers.com, that means this list of criminals is going to get REALLY LONG.
:::Maybe it would be beneficial to make this list a Wikipedia page of its own that links to "The Blacklist" main page. I can always add more information to the table; including "country of origin," or "crimes committed" to make it more comprehensive. As for the sourcing aspect, it's starting to seem that bureaucracy is getting in the way of common sense. I understand having to source the viewership numbers, or even the name of the next episode, but I don't understand having to source the information in this table. Everything in the table comes from the episode itself which already aired, the source would be the actual episode. People don't have to source the information found in the short summaries because it was all IN the episode. Once an episode airs, the citations of get removed from the "List of Episodes," I don't see why this table shouldn't be the same way. You called what I did "original research," however it's not research, I viewed all of the episodes, and everything in the table can be found in the episodes. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Rswallis10|Rswallis10]] ([[User talk:Rswallis10|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rswallis10|contribs]]) 23:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC+9)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
::::FWIW, I didn't remove your version of the list from the article because it was "original research"; I removed it because the consensus was that such a list was not needed in the article. Your version of list contained basically the same information as the "list with all the question marks" and basically the same information given in the episode tables in [[List of The Blacklist episodes#Epsodes]]. For sure, your list was formatted better, but formatting wasn't the only reason why the other version was removed. My edit sum did say "The consensus was that this list was not needed. If you'd like to propose adding it in another form, then please do so per WP:BRD at 'Talk:The Blacklist (TV series)#The Blacklist)'". I am only one editor. So, if other editors, including those who commented above, feel that your version of the list is an improvement over the previous version and should be re-added, then a new consensus will be established and everything will be good. You can try to achieve this either through [[WP:EDITCONSENSUS|editing or discussion]].
:::: Finally, and this is just my opinion, it's not <strong>details</strong> of the list (e.g., the individual names on the list, their respective crimes, where they are from, whether they are still alive, or how many people they killed, etc.) which are important. All of this information can be included in episode plot summaries. Rather, it's the <strong>significance</strong> of the list to the show (i.e., how it is used to by the show's creators to drive the various storylines, how it was originated, and how it is being covered and interpreted by reliable sources) which is important. - [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 01:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::{{reply to|Marchjuly}} I think the list may warrant a page of its own. What do you think it would take to make that happen? What do people want in it to make it worthy of a page? It's takes a while to find information and put it in the table, I want to know what to put into it before I ask for a concensus. I do still keep the table in my sandbox.<small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Rswallis10|Rswallis10]] ([[User talk:Rswallis10|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rswallis10|contribs]]) 07:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC+9)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:::::: Personally, I don't think the list warrants it's own article, but maybe that's just me. I gave my opinion above on how information about it might be incorporated into this article. [[WP:SAL|Stand-alone lists]] are subject to the same requirements as any other new article, e.g., [[WP:N]], [[WP:V]], [[WP:NPV]], etc. You can trying creating a draft using [[WP:AfC]], submit it for review and see what the reviewer says. If your draft is accepted into the [[WP:MAINSPACE|mainspace]], then great. If not, then the reviewer should leave comments on how you might be able to improve the draft. You can also [[WP:MOVE|move]] the draft into the mainspace yourself if you feel it satisfies all relevant [[WP:POLICY|policies and guidelines]] and, thus, does not need to be reviewed. There are not guarantees regardless of whichever approach you take, but be aware that once the article has been added to the mainspace, it can be edited, proposed for [[WP:DELETE|deletion]], proposed for [[WP:MERGE|merging]], etc. by any editor; In other words, [[WP:OWN|the article is not yours]] so the way you envision the article when working on its draft may not be the way it eventually turns out. If you've never created an article before or are not too familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, then I suggest going through AfC and using [[WP:WIZARD]]. If you want to see what types of things are generally considered acceptable for stand-alone lists, then check out [[WP:FA]] and [[WP:GA]]. Look for similar articles and see what other editors have done. Sorry, but I not sure what other advice I can give. Perhaps others watching this page have other suggestions. - [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 00:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

{{cot|title=Wikipedia article talk pages are for discussing ways to improve articles. Per "[[WP:TPNO|Wikipedia's talk page guidelines: Behaviour that is not acceptable]]", talk pages are not intended to be forums for general discussion of the topic.}}:::::::: What a lot of wasted time and space over an illogical, badly constructed and ridiculously acted TV entertainment. Tell me what relevance any of this will have in five or ten years? I had always assumed that an encyclopedia shound contain information, presented fully and concisely, that will explain the subject and which may have some relevance to something. Guess I was wrong - here we have more than one could imagine, spewed out by a vapid actress and a onetime star who is counting his income whenever he speaks. And the rest. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/184.148.37.136|184.148.37.136]] ([[User talk:184.148.37.136|talk]]) 19:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{cob}}

== Hisham Tawfiq promoted to series regular for Season 3. ==

Here's the [http://deadline.com/2015/03/the-blacklist-hisham-tawfiq-promoted-series-regular-season-3-nbc-1201402307/ source] from Deadline. [[User:Npamusic|Npamusic]] ([[User talk:Npamusic|talk]]) 07:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
: I think that is something worth adding to the article. I'm just not sure that where you added is the best place for it. That particular section is just a simple list of names and brief character descriptions, so the extra text and source you added seems oout of place. I removed the information about Tawiq that was accidentally deleted when your edited was reverted. I also re-added the information you added, but I have [[WP:HIDDEN|hidden]] it for the time being until it can be further discussed and a better place found for it. I think the source and information has value, but maybe it would be better added to the lede instead. Anyway, let's see what some others think. - [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 10:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

== James Spader ==

I am editing the page of [[James Spader]] and would like some feed back on my ideas. If there is any way some one can check out the bottom of his talk page that would be great. --[[User:Joshewuh2|Joshewuh2]] ([[User talk:Joshewuh2|talk]]) 21:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Joshewuh2 <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Joshewuh2|Joshewuh2]] ([[User talk:Joshewuh2|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Joshewuh2|contribs]]) 00:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Thanks for Ruining the Show ==
Can we please remove '''deceased''' from the character descriptions on the main pages? I just wanted to look up an actor's name, not find out that they die in an episode I haven't seen. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2602:306:3391:99C0:6130:EB2E:E175:19AE|2602:306:3391:99C0:6130:EB2E:E175:19AE]] ([[User talk:2602:306:3391:99C0:6130:EB2E:E175:19AE|talk]]) 06:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Fulcrum ==

No mention. [[User:Koro Neil|Koro Neil]] ([[User talk:Koro Neil|talk]]) 11:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified {{plural:3|one external link|3 external links}} on [[The Blacklist (TV series)]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=722976953 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150525075850/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/26/james-spader-megan-boone_n_4166497.html to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/26/james-spader-megan-boone_n_4166497.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140926070023/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com:80/2014/09/23/monday-final-ratings-forever-dancing-with-the-stars-scorpion-americas-next-top-model-adjusted-down/306063/? to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/09/23/monday-final-ratings-forever-dancing-with-the-stars-scorpion-americas-next-top-model-adjusted-down/306063/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141212145440/http://www.goldenglobes.com/2015_72nd_Golden_Globes_Nominees to http://www.goldenglobes.com/2015_72nd_Golden_Globes_Nominees

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 07:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

== Unnecesary, unencyclopedic Reddington Spoilers ==

I'm very lax about spoilers, but the description of Raymond Reddington under "Cast of Characters" is ridiculous to the point of violating the spirit of [[WP:SPOILER]]. Those revelations come in Season 4 and Season 5, and that policy says affirmatively that "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." Including them in a one-sentence explanation of the character doesn't serve any encyclopedic purpose because that information (''especially'' whatever him being an imposter means) isn't a core part of his character for most of the show.

In anticipation of someone quoting "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot", I am ''not'' saying that it should be removed solely because it spoils the plot. I'm saying that the information does not affirmatively serve the encyclopedic purpose of that section as it is right now. If his character description on this page were expanded beyond one sentence, including this information may become appropriate, but I think such a move would be fairly redundant. That info is certainly appropriate for the [[List of The Blacklist characters]] article and the individual articles on the Seasons, where it already appears. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 10:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

== Is it a police procedural? ==

It fits the definition from [[Police procedural]]. It's certainly not a conventional procedural in that you can't watch in any order, but I'm not sure that matters.

Megan Boone described it as [https://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/news/megan-boone-qa-star-talks-dancing-diving-working-james-spader-2014201/ "a very character driven procedural"] and Tim Goodman said [https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/blacklist-tv-review-632473 "it's a procedural ... but there's an over-arching element to the premise"].

I think "police procedural" should definitely be added to the genres in the infobox, and possibly the lead sentence too (as "'''''The Blacklist''''' is an American [[crime thriller]]&ndash;[[police procedural]] television series ..."). [[User:Nloveladyallen|Nloveladyallen]] ([[User talk:Nloveladyallen|talk]]) 21:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

: But it isn't police, rather the FBI. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 19:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
:: I think the FBI is as much police as NCIS is, and we consider [[NCIS (TV series)]] a police procedural. [[User:Nloveladyallen|Nloveladyallen]] ([[User talk:Nloveladyallen|talk]]) 03:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

== Who is Raymond Reddington? ==

While throughout the series the true identity of the man we see as Raymond Reddington has been left ambiguous, never in the series has the true identity been revealed. Information and details used should remain within the limits of what is known. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2603:6080:1E07:2200:BDC3:34CB:1BC:B71C|2603:6080:1E07:2200:BDC3:34CB:1BC:B71C]] ([[User talk:2603:6080:1E07:2200:BDC3:34CB:1BC:B71C#top|talk]]) 07:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: Nobody replied to this, because you don't indicate what you mean. In other words, what change to the article do you propose. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 17:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
:: He doesn't seem to agree that the man we believed was Reddington is actually an unnamed imposter, as was established in season 5. The description of the character was updated by another editor following the episode in which the fact that he is not the real Reddington was revealed, but the IP persists in removing that content, claimimg it is false. That the show has never revealed his true identity does not alter the fact that we know he is an imposter using Reddington's identity, as the article states. --<span style="font-variant:small-caps; text-shadow:blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em">--<font color="blue">Dr.</font><font color="red">Margi</font></span> [[User talk:Drmargi#top|<big>✉</big>]] 20:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
::: Yes, I see that, but I would like to hear what they have to say, and to propose. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 00:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
:::: Agreed; I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. Chalk it up to frustration with the constant accusatory reverts. --<span style="font-variant:small-caps; text-shadow:blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em">--<font color="blue">Dr.</font><font color="red">Margi</font></span> [[User talk:Drmargi#top|<big>✉</big>]] 01:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

== Edit war over episode list transclusion ==

We've got an edit war going over the episode list transclusion. A new editor persists in making changes that arent needed. I'm starting this discussion in the hope we can get this issue talked through and resolved. --<span style="font-variant:small-caps; text-shadow:blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em">--<font color="blue">Dr.</font><font color="red">Margi</font></span> [[User talk:Drmargi#top|<big>✉</big>]] 07:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
:It took me a while(As I kept being redirected to the list of episodes page) but I see what you mean with the other editor. They probably don't understand that the table they're trying to add already exists on the "list of episodes" page and through some fancy Wikipedia coding appears on the main page too. For what its worth I'll keep an eye out and revert if I see the editor try and add the table back onto the page. [[Special:Contributions/81.96.245.175|81.96.245.175]] ([[User talk:81.96.245.175|talk]]) 16:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

== Warning: Default sort key "Blacklist, The" overrides earlier default sort key "Blacklist". ==
Hello guy's, what that mean's this message ? -- [[User talk:Sarah nice|Sarah]] <small>([[User talk:Sara nice|Talk]])</small> 05:06, 13 May 2021 (CEST)
:I'm not sure what you're asking but I would guess you're running into an error because you're adding an already transcluded table back onto the mainpage. If you would kindly stop doing that the error shouldn't appear for you. [[Special:Contributions/81.96.245.175|81.96.245.175]] ([[User talk:81.96.245.175|talk]]) 16:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
:: Ok, thank you for your intervention, precisely I could not find the error before talk. -- [[User talk:Sarah nice|Sarah]] <small>([[User talk:Sarah nice|Talk]])</small> 22:08, 13 May 2021 (CEST))

== No mention of the show being animated? ==
Saw mention of the show's seventh season finale being animated on TV Tropes, was wondering if there could be mention of that here. [[User:Yourlocallordandsavior|Yourlocallordandsavior]] ([[User talk:Yourlocallordandsavior|talk]]) 08:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
: It's discussed in the season article; production had to be shut down for the COVID lockdown before the finale was finished, so they animated the scenes that weren't filmed. --<span style="font-variant:small-caps; text-shadow:blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em">--<font color="blue">Dr.</font><font color="red">Margi</font></span> [[User talk:Drmargi#top|<big>✉</big>]] 10:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

== Requested move 3 May 2022 ==

{{requested move/dated|The Blacklist}}

[[:The Blacklist (TV series)]] → {{no redirect|The Blacklist}} – Clear [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC]]. There are only two uses of "The Blacklist" listed at [[Blacklist (disambiguation)]] besides this popular TV series now in its 9th season: an obscure 1916 silent film and an obscure metal band. The [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=The_Blacklist_(band)%7CThe_Blacklist_(TV_series)%7CThe_Blacklist_(film) page views of the TV series dominate]. Anyone searching with "the blacklist" is almost certainly looking for the TV series. There are other uses of "Blacklist", of course, but those are highly unlikely to be sought as "The Blacklist". ''History'': Before the series premiered, [[The Blacklist]] was a dab page to the metal band and to the (then) upcoming TV series[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Blacklist&oldid=554958017]. Later it was changed to be a redirect to [[Blacklist (disambiguation)]], which it currently remains. It needs to be deleted to make room for this move. [[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 17:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)<small>—&nbsp;'''''Relisting.'''''&nbsp;—usernamekiran [[User talk:usernamekiran|(talk)]] 14:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)</small>

*'''Support''', appears to be the primary topic. [[User:Zxcvbnm|ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ]] ([[User talk:Zxcvbnm|ᴛ]]) 23:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Any Blacklist (or blacklist) could be referred to as ''the'' Blacklist. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 15:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
**Of course any blacklist ''could'' be referred ”the” blacklist, {{u|Necrothesp}}, but how is that relevant here? For how many uses of “blacklist” is “the” part of its COMMONNAME? How many uses of “blacklist” are likely to be sought as “'''The''' Blacklist”? That’s what’s relevant. See below also, please. Your reconsideration accordingly would be appreciated. —[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 10:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
***My opinion on this has never changed. "The" is not enough to disambiguate. Accordingly, no, my opinion stands. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 10:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
****{{U|Necrothesp}}, I don’t understand. What about {{u|Reidgreg}}’s examples below? [[The Godfather]], [[The Office]], [[The Big Bang Theory]]… Do you disagree with the community about “the” being enough to disambiguate in these cases? —[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 03:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
*****Frankly, yes. But if there was a real consensus then I would accept it. However, I do not believe a few highly notable examples equal a consensus. Other similar RMs have been closed without a move. There is clearly no consensus either way. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 09:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
*****:I tried looking around for RMs and this is what I found:
*****:*{{section link|Talk:The Wire#Requested move 12 January 2022}} - [[The Wire]] &rarr; [[The Wire (TV series)]] unanimous opposition, holding that the show was the clear primary topic and one editor specifically noting {{tq|readers looking for a page called "wire" won't be searching "The Wire"}}
*****:*{{section link|Talk:The Exorcist#Requested move 9 March 2022}} - [[The Exorcist (film)]] &rarr; [[The Exorcist]] moved with majority support, discussion doesn't mention any possible conflict with [[exorcist]].
*****:*{{section link|Talk:The Interview#Requested move 2 September 2016}} - [[The Interview (2014 film)]] &rarr; [[The Interview]]. A bit older, passed unanimously with limited participation. Nominator notes "The Interview" being distinct from "Interview".
*****:*{{section link|Talk:The Notebook#Requested move 9 August 2015}} - [[The Notebook (2004 film)]] &rarr; [[The Notebook]] unanimous support, no mention of a possible conflict with [[notebook]].
*****:This isn't a lot, it doesn't indicate a global consensus, but it does show decisions in line with the support side of this discussion, using the same arguments. I didn't spot any going the other way, but I only skimmed through a few hundred RMs. – [[User:Reidgreg|Reidgreg]] ([[User talk:Reidgreg|talk]]) 18:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
*:[[The UK]] and [[The USA]] redirect to [[United Kingdom]] and [[United States]] rather than [[UK (disambiguation)]] and [[USA (disambiguation)]] – [[User:Reidgreg|Reidgreg]] ([[User talk:Reidgreg|talk]]) 11:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
*::As do [[UK]] and [[USA]]! Because they're the primary topics. This TV show, however, is ''not'' the primary topic for [[Blacklist]]. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 12:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
*::*Perhaps you, {{u|Necrothesp}}, are personally unfamiliar with the TV show, but it is most certainly [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=The_Blacklist_(band)%7CThe_Blacklist_(TV_series)%7CThe_Blacklist_(film)%7CBlacklisting%7CHollywood_blacklist the PRIMARYTOPIC for '''Blacklist''' by page views]. Just look! —[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 13:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
*::**Maybe. But clearly not by long-term significance, where it is extremely rare for a TV show to trump a common concept. Frankly, the idea that it should is pretty laughable and simply discredits Wikipedia. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 13:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
*::**:Ah, so for you it’s about your perception of WP “credibility” trumping helping users find what they’re seeking. —[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 14:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
*::**:Rare, like a TV series approaching 10 seasons, 200 episodes, and spawning a media franchise? Yes, that is rare. I feel it's comparable to [[The Big Bang Theory]] in that respect. – [[User:Reidgreg|Reidgreg]] ([[User talk:Reidgreg|talk]]) 19:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
*::**::Despite being a huge fan of TBBT, I would actually agree that it is not primary topic for the phrase. As I said, it's hugely rare for a TV show to trump a common term in primacy. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 17:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
*'''Mild oppose''' Although Born2cycle is correct, I find the argument against the move raised by Necrothesp compelling. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 21:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
**{{u|Debresser}}, thank you for considering my follow-up questions. —[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 10:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
**: I agree with the reply by Necrothesp that "The" is not enough to disambiguate. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 11:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Necro. [[Hollywood blacklist]] stands out (to me) as "THE" blacklist. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 21:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
*: {{U|Gonnym}}, with “the” as part of its ''name''? Likely to be sought preceded with “the”? If that’s so, why is [[The Hollywood Blacklist]] red? Why was [[The Blacklist]] about the band (now at [[The Blacklist (band)]]) from 2008 (prior to which apparently [[The Blacklist]] was a red link) until it was moved in March 2013 to make room for a two-dab dab page? Yes, in May 2013 an IP changed that dab page to be a redirect to [[Blacklist (disambiguation)]] ([[Blacklist]] itself remains a redirect to [[Blacklisting]]), but back then the TV show hadn’t aired yet and clearly was not the primary topic, so that may have been appropriate. But not anymore. In fact, there is an argument to be made (though I’m not making it) that [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Blacklisting%7CThe_Blacklist_(TV_series)%7CHollywood_blacklist%7CThe_Blacklist by page views the TV series is the primary topic even for plain '''Blacklist''']. —[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 10:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
*:[[WP:NWFCTM]] specifically cautions against using 'what first comes to mind' as this is subjective and can lead to systemic bias. – [[User:Reidgreg|Reidgreg]] ([[User talk:Reidgreg|talk]]) 19:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
*::You're actually using systemic bias to justify why an American TV show should be primary topic for a common phrase? Really? -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 22:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
*:::Absolutely not. I'm citing an editing standard to discount personal opinion arguments which have been used by both the oppose and support side in this discussion. – [[User:Reidgreg|Reidgreg]] ([[User talk:Reidgreg|talk]]) 16:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I find it unlikely that a reader would type ''the'' and the capital ''B'' if they weren't looking for the title of a work. Like [[The Godfather]], [[The Office]] or [[The Big Bang Theory]], this makes sense to me. A hatnote might be included. – [[User:Reidgreg|Reidgreg]] ([[User talk:Reidgreg|talk]]) 12:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
*:Adding a little more to my opinion: It's ''the'' combined with title case which distinguishes this from generic usage. Even if we accept the argument that "the" can be applied to anything (though [[WP:THE]] says otherwise for article titles), the TV show is clearly primary across all blacklist articles ([https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=all-time&pages=The_Blacklist_(TV_series)|Hollywood_blacklist|Blacklisting pageview comparison]). That's the fully disambiguated title, nobody's going there by accident, and it's been the primary topic for as long as pageview statistics are available (ie: it's not recentism). Perhaps in ten years this will change and the articles can be moved again, but today it is primary and it should be moved to the proposed title. – [[User:Reidgreg|Reidgreg]] ([[User talk:Reidgreg|talk]]) 06:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
*:If I can bring up one more example: someone searching for [[idiot]] is unlikely to type [[The Idiot]]. – [[User:Reidgreg|Reidgreg]] ([[User talk:Reidgreg|talk]]) 19:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I find the rationale for opposing rather odd, The Godfather goes to the the highly acclaimed film, as oppose to Godfather which goes to a disambiguation page. Actually what I find more odd is why [[Blacklist]] (←This should be a disambiguation page!) doesn't go to a disambiguation page instead of the term [[Blacklisting]]. [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 10:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
**[[WP:OSE]]! Because [[Blacklisting]] is the clear primary topic for the term [[Blacklist]]! -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 12:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Necrothesp. [Looking at ngrams, we see considerable use of https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=The+Blacklist&corpus=26&smoothing=3 The Blacklist] prior to the start of the TV show, which should address concerns about how many uses of “blacklist” are likely to be sought as it. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 11:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
**And [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=The_Blacklist_(TV_series)%7CBlacklisting actual page views] demonstrate that the uses likely to be sought per ngrams are dwarfed by the likelihood of the tv show being sought. Usage in published books revealed by ngrams is not a good predictor of likelihood of being sought in many cases, including this one. —[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 13:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. This seems far too late, frankly, and a bit pointless. The show is fading in popularity, and any argument that this is the most common use should be qualified with 'for now...' On balance, the better argument is to oppose. --<span style="font-variant:small-caps; text-shadow:blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em">--<font color="blue">Dr.</font><font color="red">Margi</font></span> [[User talk:Drmargi#top|<big>✉</big>]] 15:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
**Have you looked at [https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Blacklist_%28disambiguation%29 outgoing page views for [[Blacklist (disambiguation)]] ]? Practically everyone who gets there ends up going to the TV series. —[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 17:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. The TV show is the primary topic for the term "The Blacklist". I find the oppose comments here unavailing. [[User talk:Vaulter|<span style="color:#F67280; font-family:Sans-Serif">'''-- Vaulter'''</span>]] 18:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support''' The TV show is clearly the primary topic for “The Blacklist”. The link traffic data backs it up. Not to mention, I’ve never heard of anyone refer to a blacklist as a proper noun with “the” in front of it other than for the TV show. Unlike, say, the US and UK where it is completely common to say “the United States” or “the United Kingdom”. A hatnote can be added linking to the disambig page for Blacklist. [[User:CAMERAwMUSTACHE|CAMERAwMUSTACHE]] ([[User talk:CAMERAwMUSTACHE|talk]]) 18:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support.''' ''The Blacklist'' series is the [[WP:PTOPIC|primary topic]] and satisfies [[WP:COMMONNAME|common name]]. Support args are policy- and guideline-based while opposing args are more toward "I don't like it" and should be discarded. It has been shown time after time on Wikipedia that the definite article "the" most definitely disambiguates titles such as [[The Carpenters]] and so many other examples as shown. Consensus in this survey lies with the supporting args, and "(TV series)" must be redirected and tagged {{tl|R from unnecessary disambiguation}}''!'' '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''&numsp;-&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'r&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;<small>05:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)</small>

===Further discussion===
Here are a slew of examples this article would be [[WP:CONSISTENT]] with if moved as proposed.

*[[The Americans]] ''is about the TV series despite the [[Americans]] article and [[The Americans (disambiguation)]] dab page''.
*[[The American Embassy]] ''is about the TV series despite the [[American Embassy]] dab page, not to mention the arguable primary topic of "American embassy", [[List of diplomatic missions of the United States]].''
*[[The Godfather]] ''is about the film despite the [[Godparent]] article and the [[Godfather]] dab page.''
*[[The Office]] ''is about the TV series despite the [[Office]] article and [[Office (disambiguation)]].''
*[[The Big Bang Theory]] ''is about the TV series despite the [[Big Bang]] article and the [[Big Bang Theory (disambiguation)]] dab page.''
*[[The Wire]] ''is about the TV series despite the [[Wire]] article and several other uses of "The Wire" listed at the [[Wire (disambiguation)]] dab page.''
*[[The Exorcist]] ''is about the film despite the [[Exorcist]] article and the [[Exorcist (disambiguation)]] dab page.''
*[[The Interview]] ''is about the film despite the [[Interview]] article and several other uses of "The Interview" listed at the [[Interview (disambiguation)]] dab page.''
*[[The Notebook]] ''is about the film despite the [[Notebook]] article and other uses of "The Notebook" as well as "notebook" listed at the [[Notebook (disambiguation)]] dab page.''
*[[The A-Team]] ''is about the TV series despite the [[The A-Team (disambiguation)]] (to which [[A-Team]] redirects)''.
*[[The Event]] ''is about the TV series despite the [[The Event (disambiguation)]] dab page.''

Sure there is [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]], but are all these "wrong"? There are ''apparent'' counter-examples, but titles like [[The Flash (2014 TV series)]], for example, are actually consistent with this proposal because in such cases the series is clearly not the primary topic for the base name (e.g. [[The Flash]]).

So, why should this article be an exception? --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 21:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
: You seem to have a problem with the fact that you can't garner consensus for your proposed move. Replying to each and every oppose and posting walls of "other stuff" is not going to help you. Just let your proposal play out, and chill. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 00:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
:::There may be no numerical consensus but I feel consensus can be taken from quality-of-argument (see [[WP:TALKDONTREVERT]]). I do agree that having nothing new to add to the discussion, that there's no use beating a dead horse ([[WP:DEADHORSE]]). – [[User:Reidgreg|Reidgreg]] ([[User talk:Reidgreg|talk]]) 02:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
How about giving the idea a chance in order to figure out, whether this would make any difficulties for users or not? If it would, we can always revert the decision and never come back to this question. - <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:185.57.28.125|185.57.28.125]] ([[User talk:185.57.28.125#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/185.57.28.125|contribs]]) 04:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)</span>
::::I agree too. I think having the concise list above ''is'' adding to the discussion. —-[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 04:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

* [[The Equalizer]] as oppose to [[Equalizer]] which is a dis page, it's the same situation, same category of TV show as The Blacklist, a perfect example that what is proposed does work and the oppose comments above do not really give any weight. [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 07:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:37, 10 February 2024



Nominating for DYK

[edit]

@Figureskatingfan, hello and thanks once again for GA promotion. I'm thinking about nominating the article for Did You Know page, but I'm not that experienced in how it's done and, as I see, the time for doing that is limited. Since you've just finished assisting this one, I want to ask you to help me here. If you consider to help me in any sphere of this nomination, I would be more than thankful to you than ever. Eagowl | talk | 04:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagowl, I think that's something that you should learn how to do, since you seem committed to improve the quality of articles. Plus, I'm not always going to be able to do it for you. Right now, I do, so I'll go ahead and do it for you. It's pretty easy, and there are lots of people who will help, like the folks who helped me through my most recent DYKs. You have seven days to submit it, so I'll make sure that it's done before the deadline if you decide you can't. Best, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for so speedy reaction, I couldn't even reply to you! I actually thought that it would be tougher to do and will require more time that it actually took. Of course, I'll learn to do it myself, but I wanted not to fail this one, given the series' ending soon and the fact it's my first GA after all. Eagowl | talk | 01:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm so glad you went ahead and submitted the nom yourself! Wow, you even reviewed another DYK, which you don't have to do until your fifth nom. I'm also glad you found it easier than you thought; I find that if I don't submit DYK noms regularly, I make all kinds of errors, which kind folks came behind and help me fix. It looks like it's gonna go through, so congrats. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, the hook has been reviewed, but what should be done next? I've tried to understand the process of approving it for the Main Page, but I found it a bit messy (approved hooks, then awaiting approval, then prep ares, queues…) while the time (7 days since promotion) is expiring. Could you please clarify how to go on with it? Eagowl | 11:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagowl (talk • contribs)
There's nothing further that you need to do. The reviewer added the green check mark, so it's done. The DYK admins will put it on the schedule and then a bot will inform you of the date it's gonna be up on the Main Page. Go here Template:Did you know/Queue if you want to check for when it shows up in the queue and the exact time it will be there. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Eagowl (talk) and Figureskatingfan (talk). Nominated by Bruxton (talk) at 00:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Blacklist; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: A good article, passes earwig and is adequately sourced. No close paraphrasing was found. The hook/fact is very interesting, cited inline, and verified. QPQ done. Minor suggestion/tweaking, "the television series The Blacklist ; "but instead he became...", otherwise nom good to go. Great work. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


"CIA agent" reported as main page error

[edit]

Copied here from the mainpage error report.

"former CIA agent Bazzel Baz was hired to be a consultant for The Blacklist" contains a possible error. "CIA agent" and "CIA officer" mean two different things as explained at Intelligence officer. Unfortunately, each of the two sources at The Blacklist use a different title for Mr. (?) Baz. His personal website claims SOG officer and case officer, so we should probably go with that per BLP policy. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Blacklist&oldid=1205622097"